Northernisation: the erosion of democracy and the need for repartition.

oscarBravo

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I think an island nation has far more obvious boundaries than continental countries.

Water determines national boundaries? How much water? Should we disown the Aran islands?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

But since Germany doesn't want it back, I would say it is part of France.

What if Germany decides it does want it back? What if half the people who live there want to be German?

Roisin Dubh

oscarBravo wrote:

Water determines national boundaries? How much water? Should we disown the Aran islands? What if Germany decides it does want it back? What if half the people who live there want to be German?

Well, the difference here is that Alsace-Lorraine does not seem to be particularly wedded to a specific national identity in its history. As this article explains:

http://splendidpalate.net/Alsace.html

Unlike Irish regions, which were sometimes independent or nearly independent of each other, the people of Alsace and Lorraine never seemed to particularly want to become independent or become part of Germany or France. They just usually did whatever the local nobles wanted, e.g. be part of Germany or France. There is no real sense of a strong national identity in that area. Also, its ethnic composition has not changed substantially.

Also, another difference is that the whole of Ireland was ruled by Britain for centuries, whereas there was never a period of centuries during which France or Germany were ruled by the other. So it isn't a parallel situation to NI in that Alsace-Lorraine wasn't created as a partitioned statelet after a centuries old occupation of the country that the provinces were originally part of, if you get my drift.

oscarBravo

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Well, the difference here is that Alsace-Lorraine does not seem to be particularly wedded to a specific national identity in its history. ... Unlike Irish regions, which were sometimes independent or nearly independent of each other, the people of Alsace and Lorraine never seemed to particularly want to become independent or become part of Germany or France.

Now I'm really confused. Ireland is a more natural candidate for insular national unity because regions of the island were independent of each other in the past?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

There is no real sense of a strong national identity in that area. Also, its ethnic composition has not changed substantially.

Again, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that Ireland has a single national identity because of the influx of Scandinavian, Norman and Anglo-Saxons throughout the years?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Also, another difference is that the whole of Ireland was ruled by Britain for centuries, whereas there was never a period of centuries during which France or Germany were ruled by the other. So it isn't a parallel situation to NI in that Alsace-Lorraine wasn't created as a partitioned statelet after a centuries old occupation of the country that the provinces were originally part of, if you get my drift.

I'll agree that there are few parallels. On the other hand, it seems a huge leap of logic to suggest that Ireland has a single island-wide national identity by simple virtue of the fact that it was ruled by Britain.

Roisin Dubh

Again, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that Ireland has a single national identity because of the influx of Scandinavian, Norman and Anglo-Saxons throughout the years?

On a program a few years ago on BBC called "Blood of the Vikings", DNA tests carried out in Rush in Co.Dublin found almost no traces of non-Celtic DNA, to the evident surprise of the presenter of the programme. It would seem that the Scandinavian settlement may have been far smaller than initially believed, with the Vikings in Dublin, for example, constituting at one time a small ruling elite, rather than a major colonising ruler.

Now I'm really confused. Ireland is a more natural candidate for insular national unity because regions of the island were independent of each other in the past?

As recently as until 1801, Ireland was under a single parliament in Dublin (albeit a "no Catholics need apply" one). So Ireland does have a record as having its own island-wide parliament for hundreds of years (even if it wasn't elected fairly).

Culturally, the island of Ireland was pretty much homogenous ethnically, with the entire island in periodic rebellion against London since virtually day one, ESPECIALLY the area now in NI. It was only after the British shipped in their people that that changed (except the minority of the Protestant population rebelling their in 1798). So partition is the result of ethnic-cleansing of Irish people. That should not be rewarded.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

You could make a justification for the British trying to put down the American War of Independence if you follow that line of reasoning. For example, pro-British Americans had their property confiscated, or else were beaten or even executed. The British would have an argument then, under your apparent line of reasoning, that they were in the right in trying to put down the rebellion. Is that your view?.

I would love to know your source where " pro-British Americans had their property confiscated, or else were beaten or even executed ". I thought the American war of independence did not involve "pro-British Americans having their property confiscated, or else were beaten or even executed" ?
To answer your question about the American war of Independence which you ask, a few hundred years ago most countries in Europe had colonies, and if there was a rebellion in a colony it was normal practice by the standards of the time to try to quell the rebellion.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

It seems to me somewhat unpatriotic to label those who liberated Southern Ireland as being in the wrong. Is that what you are doing? .

No, I never said that. Anyway, who do you mean by the "liberators" of Ireland ? The people / entrepreneurs who helped create the celtic tiger and liberate us from poverty ? The people who liberated us from an otherwise fascist controlled Europe in WW2 , and who formed the EEC, much to our advantage ? Hardly the people who burnt out people and shot people in the back ?
I suppose if your hero Gerry Adams became taoiseach of the 32 county Ireland, you would declare it unpatriotic for citizens of the island to " label those who liberated Northern Ireland as being in the wrong. ". You would stick posters of the H-block heroes in the entrance halls of government institutions, just like I had to look at a large poster of the 1916 heroes on the wall of a college in Dublin every day. Not great parity of esteem from you , is there ?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

As I understand it, at the time of the English invasion, Ireland was under a High King, to which all other Irish kings were theoretically subordinate. The kings fought over the throne at various times. .

At the time of the "English invasion" , people were more concerned at having enough to eat. People coming from Scotland to N. Ireland ( which you can clearly see on a good day ) was not much politically different then than going from the North island of New Zealand to the South island of New Zealand, or from one island of Japan to another island of Japan.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

While I do not begrudge the NI Protestants their rights to continue living on this island, I do insist that the artificial statelet of NI come to an end at some stage.

You cn insist all you want but the people of Northern Ireland can tell you to mind your own business.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I accepted the GFA's provisions on the so-called principle of consent giving the "people of NI" a veto on reunification, but I do so grudgingly, since I recognise that the "majority" in NI are in fact the "minority" on the island of Ireland, which I consider to be one country.
.

That is your right. The Portuguese are are minority on the Iberian peninsula, but that does not give the Spanish the right to take over their territory.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The collusion of the British state with Loyalist terrorists to murder Pat Finucane and others confirms my view that there is something malign about partition.

LOL. There is just as much proof about "The collusion of the British state with Loyalist terrorists to murder Pat Finucane " as there is about "the collusion of the Irish state with Republican terrorists to murder Lord Justice Gibson and his wife, among others ".

Roisin Dubh wrote:

The constant violence and instability in NI also confirms me in my belief that NI is a failed political entity. Partition was not a natural state of affairs. It is the Frankenstein's monster of states, and while it remains part of the UK, its problems can ultimately only get worse as far as I can see.

Only is a sizeable proportion there want it to get worse. If everyone worked hard to make things better, it would get better.

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

As recently as until 1801, Ireland was under a single parliament in Dublin (albeit a "no Catholics need apply" one). So Ireland does have a record as having its own island-wide parliament for hundreds of years (even if it wasn't elected fairly).

So ? North America was once one big country , you could say. Now is comprises Canada, USA etc. Everyone has a vote , just like in Ireland.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Culturally, the island of Ireland was pretty much homogenous ethnically, with the entire island in periodic rebellion against London since virtually day one, ESPECIALLY the area now in NI.

Yeah, everyone was rebelling 24 hours a day, since virtually day one.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

It was only after the British shipped in their people that that changed (except the minority of the Protestant population rebelling their in 1798). So partition is the result of ethnic-cleansing of Irish people. That should not be rewarded.

You should not strive to reward or punish people based on what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago.
People migrating from Scotland and Wales to other celtic areas like Ireland 300 or 400 years ago could not be considered ethnic cleansing. If it is, many other migrations in history are are bigger examples of "ethnic cleansing".

Johnny_the_fox

true wrote:

LOL. There is just as much proof about "The collusion of the British state with Loyalist terrorists to murder Pat Finucane " as there is about "the collusion of the Irish state with Republican terrorists to murder Lord Justice Gibson and his wife, among others ".

Well actually there is proof -> Stephens Report?

only 30 pages of the 900 page document have been released due : "The overwhelming bulk of the detail has been witheld because of potential future prosecutions."..

thejollyrodger

Northern Ireland’s borders were never drawn in the right place. As the free state descended into civil war and with a strong unionist presence on the border commission the latter group were able to maximise the portion of Ulster granted to them. This led to a large and growing nationalist population trapped in an alien state. So, I say give them what they’ve always desired. The south and west of Northern Ireland contain considerable nationalist majorities. The smaller northeast and greater Belfast area has a sizeable unionist majority. A bit like the island as a whole. Therefore just cleave off the former region and add it to the Republic. For the minorities left behind on each side – Protestants in east Derry and Catholics in west Belfast – offer very generous resettlement packages. And I mean generous – they would need to feel that they were exchanging their current location for a life and a future at least as good as their present.

I just picked up on this thread, I read the above and came to the conclusion the post is ludercous. There is no way the north is going to be carved up again and added on to the south.

Im from the south and Im happy with the status quo. Maybe there should be a all island soccer league but thats it, I dont want to loose the republic soccer team. The north has MASSIVe econmic problems and who wants to take that on.

I dont want to go on. Basically I think if the SF/MAFIA/IRA stop the terrorism and criminality then we can all live in peace full stop.

Flex

How are ya Roisin Dubh.Youve made good points and put them across very well so dont let yourself be hounded out of this discussion by "His Majestys Loyal Subjects of the 'Disloyal Republic of Southern Ireland' "! I agree with your point about regarding all of Ireland as my homeland :cool:



I would love to know your source where " pro-British Americans had their property confiscated, or else were beaten or even executed ". I thought the American war of independence did not involve "pro-British Americans having their property confiscated, or else were beaten or even executed" ?
To answer your question about the American war of Independence which you ask, a few hundred years ago most countries in Europe had colonies, and if there was a rebellion in a colony it was normal practice by the standards of the time to try to quell the rebellion.

Could ya show were ya managed to find the passage which allowed you to interpret Roisin Dubh as a SF follower, republican fanatic, or fan of Gerry Adams.

Anyway, who do you mean by the "liberators" of Ireland ? The people / entrepreneurs who helped create the celtic tiger and liberate us from poverty ?

Yeah thats right.Ireland only became wealthy because Great Britain filled our beggars bowl, good point.It had nothing to do with hard work, good economic planning, determination, ability to attract foreign investment, attract IT industrys and other growth sector industrys.How do you think Britain became wealthy?Could it have been that empire of theirs "on which the sun it never set"?Maybe they exploited smaller, weaker countries and left them in a state of destitute economic retardation(like Ireland).Also didnt they usually end up causing civil wars around the place?India, Cyprus, Palestine, Ireland.Nah, sure they wouldnt do something as mean and lacking in nobility like that.They only occupied those territories to guide the uncivilised, backward savages to self government, isnt that right.Sure, forget the Famine, penal laws, Cromwell, plantations, being shipped to Aus, and all the bad things, coz they built some rail roads.Also they were gracious enough to give us 26 counties from the western province of THEIR country to accomadate us;violent ungrateful troublesome little minority.

The people who liberated us from an otherwise fascist controlled Europe in WW2 ,

Our neutrality biased in favor of the Allies:FACT.When Allied personal landed in Eire or whatever they were allowed "escape" across the border while Germans were interned.Weather reports and any sightings of U-Boats off the coast were given to the British(our weather reports were also responsible for helping allow the Allies plan D-Day).DeV signed the book on Hitlers death because he wanted to be "neutral to the end", not because he was pro-Nazi.He was far more sympathetic on Roosevelts death.Britain hated our neutrality because we were a Commonwealth country, but refused to fight along with them.In short, we embarassed them.Other countries which were larger than Eire and in strategically important locations remained neutral; Spain, Portugal, Sweden.There was also Switzerland.Also, Finland, Italy, and I think Romania and Bulgaria were active Nazi Allies.

Hardly the people who burnt out people and shot people in the back ?

When that happened down here it was bad because it was low lives doing it, but it was okay up the north because it had government approval.Right?

I suppose if your hero Gerry Adams became taoiseach of the 32 county Ireland, you would declare it unpatriotic for citizens of the island to " label those who liberated Northern Ireland as being in the wrong. ". You would stick posters of the H-block heroes in the entrance halls of government institutions

How did ya manage to come to that conclusion?Another masterful interpretation.

Not great parity of esteem from you , is there ?

None from you.

People coming from Scotland to N. Ireland ( which you can clearly see on a good day ) was not much politically different then than going from the North island of New Zealand to the South island of New Zealand, or from one island of Japan to another island of Japan.

Were these also plantations with the intention of supressing people?The plantations were not natural immigration.

The Portuguese are are minority on the Iberian peninsula, but that does not give the Spanish the right to take over their territory.

Then why do the British have the right to take Irish territory?Might aswel say the Polish only got a country after WW1 by stealing land off the Germans, because you seem to think we only have a country by forcing Britain to cede part of their country.

true

Flex wrote:

How are ya Roisin Dubh.Youve made good points and put them across very well so dont let yourself be hounded out of this discussion by "His Majestys Loyal Subjects of the 'Disloyal Republic of Southern Ireland' "! I agree with your point about regarding all of Ireland as my homeland :cool:

Number one , you are trying to insult me by slurring "His Majestys Loyal Subjects of the 'Disloyal Republic of Southern Ireland' " Number two,
did I hound anyone out of this discussion ? The language you use, Flex, is much more akin to hounding out, than mine.

Flex wrote:

True asked "I would love to know your source where " pro-British Americans had their property confiscated, or else were beaten or even executed "."

I am still waiting : I am sure there is no source because the above statement does not accurately reflect the American war of independence.

Flex wrote:

Yeah thats right.Ireland only became wealthy because Great Britain filled our beggars bowl, good point.It had nothing to do with hard work, good economic planning, determination, ability to attract foreign investment, attract IT industrys and other growth sector industrys.How do you think Britain became wealthy?Could it have been that empire of theirs "on which the sun it never set"?Maybe they exploited smaller, weaker countries and left them in a state of destitute economic retardation(like Ireland).Also didnt they usually end up causing civil wars around the place?India, Cyprus, Palestine, Ireland.Nah, sure they wouldnt do something as mean and lacking in nobility like that.They only occupied those territories to guide the uncivilised, backward savages to self government, isnt that right.Sure, forget the Famine, penal laws, Cromwell, plantations, being shipped to Aus, and all the bad things, coz they built some rail roads.Also they were gracious enough to give us 26 counties from the western province of THEIR country to accomadate us;violent ungrateful troublesome little minority..

Finishing your childish little rant now Flex ?

Flex wrote:

Britain hated our neutrality because we were a Commonwealth country, but refused to fight along with them.In short, we embarassed them.Other countries which were larger than Eire and in strategically important locations remained neutral; Spain, Portugal, Sweden.

The allies hated our neutrality because it caused many needless deaths during the battle of the atlantic, and we did not play our part as a country in defeating Nazism. Nevertheless, 70,000 brave men from the 26 counties, from all classes and creeds, volunteered and went to join British forces in the war , along with 50, 000 from N. Ireland. It makes the size of the IRA pale in to insignificance.

Flex wrote:

When that happened down here it was bad because it was low lives doing it, but it was okay up the north because it had government approval.Right?
.

It ( murder and intimidation ) had not government approval up the North , just as it had not government approval down here. Get your facts right please.

Flex wrote:

How did ya manage to come to that conclusion?Another masterful interpretation..

It is the logical conclusion of what was said. If someone became taoiseach of the 32 county Ireland, he / she would declare it unpatriotic for citizens of the island to " label those who liberated Northern Ireland as being in the wrong" if the same person thought that it was unpatriotic for citizens of the island to " label those who liberated the 26 counties of Ireland as being in the wrong".

Flex wrote:

None from you..

Less from you

Flex wrote:

Were these also plantations with the intention of supressing people?The plantations were not natural immigration..

Perhaps the shiploads of Irish who went to America were not natural immigration. Does that make their descendants any less worthy of their rights than other people in America? Maybe you think white man and black man should come back from America and all the land should be returned to the Native Americans ? After all their suffering is nearly half as long as our suffering under the Brits.

Flex wrote:

Then why do the British have the right to take Irish territory?Might aswel say the Polish only got a country after WW1 by stealing land off the Germans, because you seem to think we only have a country by forcing Britain to cede part of their country.

The British dont have a right to " take " Irish terrority. The majority of the people in N. Ireland see themselves as British / wanting to stay in the UK.
The terrority of the 6 counties is politically part of the UK.
If you support the Good Friday agreement, you must recognise that.
N. Ireland is part of the UK. Tasmania belongs to Australia. Sicily belongs to Italy. Whats the big deal ?

Roisin Dubh

I would love to know your source where " pro-British Americans had their property confiscated, or else were beaten or even executed ". I thought the American war of independence did not involve "pro-British Americans having their property confiscated, or else were beaten or even executed" ?

I am still waiting : I am sure there is no source because the above statement does not accurately reflect the American war of independence.

http://www.uelac.org/loyalist.pdf

Patriot authorities punished Loyalists who spoke their views too loudly by stripping them of their property and goods and banishing them on pain of death should they ever return. They coerced others into silence with threats. Throughout the Thirteen colonies that were under Patriot control, Loyalists could not vote, sell land, sue debtors, or work as lawyers, doctors or schoolteachers

I have read that some were executed in a Britannica Encyclopaedia.

The allies hated our neutrality because it caused many needless deaths during the battle of the atlantic, and we did not play our part as a country in defeating Nazism. Nevertheless, 70,000 brave men from the 26 counties, from all classes and creeds, volunteered and went to join British forces in the war , along with 50, 000 from N. Ireland. It makes the size of the IRA pale in to insignificance.

I agree that the 70,000 were brave men, but otherwise, I counter your opposition to our neutrality. Joining WW2 would have caused other needless deaths namely, OURS! We were completely militarily defenceless. The Government tried to buy arms in the US but the British intervened behind the scenes to ensure the US would refuse. So assuming we did join the Allies, how would we have defended ourselves during a blitz by the Luftwaffe? Ah yes - we'd "need" to let the British armed forces come down here to "protect" us wouldn't we? In other words back to where we were in 1920. No thanks!

It ( murder and intimidation ) had not government approval up the North , just as it had not government approval down here. Get your facts right please.

Oh? What about the collusion attested to in the murder of Pat Finucane by the Stevens Report? Even the 1% of it that has been released admits this went on, and remember the Panorama episode on BBC a few years ago on the "A License to Murder" program where Ken Barrett was personally recorded spelling out the role of the British/NI security forces in colluding with him to murder Pat Finucane? And you don't consider that to amount to Government approval don't you? I see. What about Bloody Sunday? Was it really necessary for the soldiers to chase old men dont alleys and shoot them in the back, as well as finishing off injured persons who lay on the ground? Are you saying none of this had NI Govt or British Govt approval? Come off it! :rolleyes:

Perhaps the shiploads of Irish who went to America were not natural immigration. Does that make their descendants any less worthy of their rights than other people in America? Maybe you think white man and black man should come back from America and all the land should be returned to the Native Americans ? After all their suffering is nearly half as long as our suffering under the Brits.

Well to be fair the Native Americans did not see themselves as all part of an "American nation". The concept of countries or "states" doesn't seem to have existed in North America at that time, unlike Europe.

The British dont have a right to " take " Irish terrority. The majority of the people in N. Ireland see themselves as British / wanting to stay in the UK.

They do but NI is an artificial creation. You can create whatever majority you like if you draw the border in a certain way. That doesn't suddenly make it a legitimate majority! For example, if you combined Southern Ireland with Northern England, and called the new region "West Britain"(!), you could say "the majority in West Britain want to remain in the UK! How dare the Irish try to impose their will on the majority!". See how silly the reference to a NI "majority" is then?

Im from the south and Im happy with the status quo. Maybe there should be a all island soccer league but thats it, I dont want to loose the republic soccer team. The north has MASSIVe econmic problems and who wants to take that on.

What "massive economic problems" are you talking about?

toiletduck

Roisin Dubh wrote:

They do but NI is an artificial creation.

All countries are artifical creations....

Roisin Dubh

toiletduck wrote:

All countries are artifical creations....

Right but NI is more illegitimate than most because it was created in 1920, in fairly recent history.

Its apologists argued that the Six Counties were Protestant and wanted to remain in the Union. In fact only 4 of them were Protestant so the basis for the 6-county statelet was in fact a lie. With only 2 of them being Protestant now the basis has now expired.

ArthurDent

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Right but NI is more illegitimate than most because it was created in 1920, in fairly recent history.

Hmm - don't get your point here. Are you saying "recently" created countries are illegitimate simply by virtue of beiing created "recently". Surely half the soverign countries of the world have come about since the 1920's with the break up of the British Empire, decrease in colonial powers such as France, spain and Portugal and the breakdown of the communist bloc.

Roisin Dubh

ArthurDent wrote:

Hmm - don't get your point here. Are you saying "recently" created countries are illegitimate simply by virtue of beiing created "recently". Surely half the soverign countries of the world have come about since the 1920's with the break up of the British Empire, decrease in colonial powers such as France, spain and Portugal and the breakdown of the communist bloc.

Okay but to deny the link between the island of Ireland and the Irish people is just not living in the real world. Ireland was considered a single country when the English invaded, and by foreign countries. Britain just decided to create a new state with an artificial majority to sustain the disgraceful history of its rule here.

800 years of oppression should not be rewarded.

Even the borders of the new statelet of NI did not reflect the Nationalist-Unionist divide. If all the Catholic counties were given to the South and the Protestant ones to the North, then that would at least follow largely the principle of NI's boundaries being based on counties wanting to stay in the Union. I will never give any respect to the statelet with respect to supporting its separate existence from outside the jurisdiction of the Dublin Government, come hell or high water. It is a disgrace and its history since partition confirms that partition was a mistake.

ArthurDent

Roisin Dubh wrote:

800 years of oppression should not be rewarded.

Rewarding whom with what?

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I will never give any respect to the statelet with respect to supporting its separate existence from outside the jurisdiction of the Dublin Government, come hell or high water. It is a disgrace and its history since partition confirms that partition was a mistake.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this, but if the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want to remain as part of Britain, why should this change - other than arguments over the illegality of the founding of such a state - and what's with statelet, btw? what is the definition of statelet?

Roisin Dubh

ArthurDent wrote:

Rewarding whom with what?


You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this, but if the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want to remain as part of Britain, why should this change - other than arguments over the illegality of the founding of such a state - and what's with statelet, btw? what is the definition of statelet?

I know that in practice, the statelet will probably continue its wretched legal existence until the day comes (if) when Unionists lose their majority. It should not have been allowed to reach the state of being allowed to break away from the rest of Ireland/stay part of the UK without the rest of Ireland. Even if you use "will of the people" arguments, that means that Fermanagh and Tyrone should not have been included. The statelet oppressed nationalists for 50 years and would not allow a single Catholic into the Cabinet, such was its Aparteid mentality. For 30 years, direct rule was not that much better, with a police-force that used Catholics as target-practice and helped Loyalists murder innocent Catholics. Further, the RUC remained over 90% Protestant, to ensure it enforced partial 'justice' and oppressed Irish nationalists in the North. Nowadays, I would urge NI Catholics to join the PSNI, in the hope of making such oppression by the NI security forces less likely in the future. However, I still despise the notion that NI is a legitimate state. I consider it an odious statelet with a gerrymandered 'majority' created with malign intent of maintaining a vestige of a declining empire.

ArthurDent

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I know that in practice, the statelet will probably continue its wretched legal existence until the day comes (if) when Unionists lose their majority. It should not have been allowed to reach the state of being allowed to break away from the rest of Ireland/stay part of the UK without the rest of Ireland. Even if you use "will of the people" arguments, that means that Fermanagh and Tyrone should not have been included. The statelet oppressed nationalists for 50 years and would not allow a single Catholic into the Cabinet, such was its Aparteid mentality. For 30 years, direct rule was not that much better, with a police-force that used Catholics as target-practice and helped Loyalists murder innocent Catholics. Further, the RUC remained over 90% Protestant, to ensure it enforced partial 'justice' and oppressed Irish nationalists in the North. Nowadays, I would urge NI Catholics to join the PSNI, in the hope of making such oppression by the NI security forces less likely in the future. However, I still despise the notion that NI is a legitimate state. I consider it an odious statelet with a gerrymandered 'majority' created with malign intent of maintaining a vestige of a declining empire.

I don't disagree with you that the founding of NI was a political compromise and it certainly lead to all you state here. But here and now in 2005 what do you suggest be done about it - surely given the fact that there is a unionist majority and a majority of its population (unionist and republican) want to stay part of UK, anything other than allowing the staus quo vis-a-vis sovernignity (sorry I know my spelling sucks) would be against self-determinationist principles?
What would you suggest happen - forceful repatriation to a 32 county Ireland? How would that be managed?

Roisin Dubh

ArthurDent wrote:

I don't disagree with you that the founding of NI was a political compromise and it certainly lead to all you state here. But here and now in 2005 what do you suggest be done about it - surely given the fact that there is a unionist majority and a majority of its population (unionist and republican) want to stay part of UK, anything other than allowing the staus quo vis-a-vis sovernignity (sorry I know my spelling sucks) would be against self-determinationist principles?
What would you suggest happen - forceful repatriation to a 32 county Ireland? How would that be managed?

I don't and won't see the Unionists as a "majority". Sorry, but I am set in my ways on this question. I see NI as something to be endured rather than approved of.

unme

First of all, credit to MT for the original post. It is nice to read a post by someone who has gone to the effort of putting together a good argument and presented it in a fair and balanced manner (whether you agree entirely with it or not).

on later posts....

Roisin Dubh wrote:

...with a police-force that used Catholics as target-practice...

It is precisely this style of argument that makes many Irish people dismiss the republican argument on Northern Ireland. My guess is that most people would never take that type or statement seriously. It appeals to some, but turns most away.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Further, the RUC remained over 90% Protestant, to ensure it enforced partial 'justice' and oppressed Irish nationalists in the North.

There was a death threat issued by the IRA on every single catholic that joined the RUC - that should be considered along with your figures. The 10% (by your figures) of catholics that joined anyway, showed more courage and civic duty than any of those who shot at them, or planted bombs under their cars.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Nowadays, I would urge NI Catholics to join the PSNI, in the hope of making such oppression by the NI security forces less likely in the future.

I have no problem with most of that argument. I feel that catholics should be allowed to choose a career in their community's police force - in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere. Their choice of job should not be dictated by paramilitaries.

If the current Sinn Fein leadership has learned one thing since coming south, it is that they will have to weed out some of the meaningless rhetoric and provocative detail from their republican literature if they are to appeal to a broad range of people in the Republic.

Most people in the Republic might express a view that they would like a united Ireland, but I don't believe that should be taken to mean that they support a forced or unfair arrangement. The unionist community in Northern Ireland are a legitimate community, formed over centuries on this island, and with a right to exist and express their own identity. They are part of this island, and any fair solution must include them and take account of their concerns. If this means an intermediate arrangement that falls short of the ultimate goal of a united Ireland, then so be it.

One thing that the people of the Republic of Ireland have in common with their northern Irish and British neighbours is that they don't want is to surrender their freedom to self-appointed paramilitary dictators.

As it stands today, most Irish people are as opposed to Sinn Fein/IRA, as any unionist. That is not a good sign for those who claim to be dedicated to achieving a united Ireland.

MT

My view is that there are two ethnic/national groupings of people on this island. Furthermore, they both have an approximate geographic area with which they strongly identify. True republicans should believe in self-determination for both peoples.

IMO two of the most important tenets of the ideology are democracy and self-determination. Wherever a collection of people share a distinct identity and inhabit a particular space they should have the right to draw a boundary around themselves and acquire statehood. This has occurred right across Europe and many parts of the world and could still go further. Why should Ireland be any different?

This is the crux of the issue. What is sought by those that call - Sinn Fein in particular - for a united island state is different. It is not republicanism: but instead geographic imperialism. Placing a unionist population with a belief in a separate identity and an attachment to their own space under the governance of this state would be to deny them self-determination. In doing so this country would cease to be a republic.

Many geographic imperialists can see their ‘republicanism’ for what it really is. Yet any such doubts are usually assuaged by a number of rationalisations. The first concerns the creation of this other identity on the island. ‘These people came here through an invasion and took land that didn’t belong to them’ so the argument goes. For this crime there must be restitution. ‘Those unionists have no right to divide Ireland as they came here illegally.’ But the thing is, the people who planned, executed and settled on confiscated land after that invasion are all long dead. Setting aside the vastly different moral climate of that era, even if punishment were justified the perpetrators no longer exist. So in fact what we are left with is the settling of an old score by imposing a penalty on a group born centuries after the event. If unionists are to be forced to relinquish their desire for self-determination due to the actions of their ancestors where do you draw the line. If I commit a crime will my descendants the most of half a millennium hence be punished for it. Surely when you die the slate is wiped clean – future generations are freed of guilt or culpability.

So on to geographic imperialism justification number two. ‘Almost half of Northern Ireland’s population aren’t unionists’. Why should they live under a state they don’t identify with? What about their self-determination? And I agree, it’s completely unjust. Hence, my proposal for repartition and resettlement. Give both groups in the north the nationhood they are clearly entitled too. However, the imposition of an all island state – even if a slim majority there voted for it – would see the current intolerable situation merely re-emerge in a mirror image. Northern nationalists would have been granted the sovereign state they aspire to but what about the other ethnic group. Their sense of separateness from Irish rule is just as strong and as valid IMO as ours is from British rule.

Finally, justification number three. ‘Ireland was exploited and suffered terribly under British rule’. Unionists supported that rule and so again deserve punishment. Sure, they can stay on the island but only as an alienated minority in an all island state and not as a separate nation. Or part of a separate nation. Again, I say this is grossly unfair punishment for the actions of past generations. The Anglo-Irish ascendancy is long gone, the plantations an even more distant memory. Furthermore, think about this. Without the concept of a separate state for their people protestants/unionists had no other option but to support the unity of the entire island with Britain to avoid what they feared would be a state with no place for them. I’m not defending the actions of prods past, just trying to understand their approach to the constitutional issue. But no matter what they did, can their descendants be held accountable?

The problem is that the borders of this republic were drawn in the wrong place. Unionists were granted their self-determination but a considerable number of nationalists were left beyond the frontier of their true homeland. Ironically, this was a result of unionist imperialism. James Craig had attempted to get as much of the north as possible for his people’s separate state. This was wholly unjust and should never have been allowed to stand. In rectifying this should imperialism in the other direction be employed? Do two wrongs make a right? Doing so in the 1920s resulted in a tribally divided, undemocratic and dysfunctional state. Have we learned so little from the past 80 years that we’re prepared to turn back the clock and again force an unwillingly people to live in a state they have no wish to be a part of? If so let no so-called republican ever again decry the English subjugation of these islands or British imperialism across the globe.

Flex

Once again excellent post MT.Ill simply ask ya this;if Unionists get to divide Ireland and keep it divided because they dont "identify" with the Irish nation, why cant the Irish in Britain be afforded a similar settlement?For example the city of Liverpool elected Home Rule(aka Irish Nationalist) candidates, so they should be permitted to be a part of the republic of Ireland,correct?

The thing is, I regard all of Ireland as my native land,my homeland, my nation,etc.I can no sooner get used to the idea of cutting off my arm as I could to cutting away part of my homeland(I know its a bit of a stupid analogy, but ya get my point).If 1 ethnic minority in Ireland is permitted its own nation (Unionists), then what about other ethnic minorities, should they be accomadated in a similar fashion?Under the GFA, people will be allowed to maintain British citizenship or both Irish & British citizenship regardless of the future constitutional status of those 6 counties.And the reason most people bring up that ancient history you mentioned is because partition keeps it alive and a fresh reminder of what was done.

My feelings arnt driven by anti-Unionism/anti-Briton/anti-Protestantism, I simply regard all Ireland as my homeland and I always will.Wanting all-Ireland to be a self governing sovereign nation is not irredentism,imperialism,,land grabbing,etc., its a right.

oscarBravo

Flex wrote:

The thing is, I regard all of Ireland as my native land,my homeland, my nation,etc.

Again and again this sort of rhetoric is trotted out, but nobody will answer me this simple question: why? What is it about this island of all islands that causes people to become so attached to the idea that it must be a single political unit?

Flex wrote:

I can no sooner get used to the idea of cutting off my arm as I could to cutting away part of my homeland(I know its a bit of a stupid analogy, but ya get my point).

Not really, no. Unless you're seriously old, all your life you've lived in a 26-county republic. Nobody took anything away from you. What's with the obsession with getting it back?

Flex wrote:

Wanting all-Ireland to be a self governing sovereign nation is not irredentism,imperialism,,land grabbing,etc., its a right.

Says who?

true

Roisin Dubh wrote:

, with a police-force that used Catholics as target-practice

With all due respect, I think you will find far more Catholics deliberately went out and used RUC people as target practice / bomb practice than the other way round, if you look at the statistics.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

,
and helped Loyalists murder innocent Catholics.

Was it as widespread as the Gardai collusion with republicans , in the murder of certain "what the IRA call legitimate targets " near the border ? Both the RUC and Gardai are good forces, but unfortunately in tens of thousands of people over the decades you will not get ethical / moral / legal behaviour from
100% of their members. No need to tarnish the other 99% who did a good job in sometimes extremely dangerous and stressful circumstances.

Roisin Dubh wrote:

,
Further, the RUC remained over 90% Protestant, to ensure it enforced partial 'justice' and oppressed Irish nationalists in the North.

The IRA putting a deatrh sentence on RUC members from their own community did not help. As someone from the south who has visited the North hundreds of times over the years, I have always found the RUC fair and friendly, in all fairness.
Anyway, what percentage of the Guards were protestant 30 or 40 or 50 years ago ? Even now, I think there are only 12 or 14 out of the whole force ( of 12000 if I remember correctly, but I am open to correction on this ).

[ Daithí ]

oscarBravo wrote:

Again and again this sort of rhetoric is trotted out, but nobody will answer me this simple question: why? What is it about this island of all islands that causes people to become so attached to the idea that it must be a single political unit?

Why don't you ask the same question whenever you hear the word "Britain"? Or do you?

true

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Why don't you ask the same question whenever you hear the word "Britain"? Or do you?

Because people from Britain do not have a political party with an armed wing that has had a history of murder, mayhem , bombing, extortion and robbery when it does not get its way.

[ Daithí ]

That makes no sense whatsoever. It's not as if the existence of the the IRA should change whether someone believes islands should be single political units.

true

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Why don't you ask the same question whenever you hear the word "Britain"? Or do you?

That makes no sense either, in view of the question : "why? What is it about this island of all islands that causes people to become so attached to the idea that it must be a single political unit? "

Scotland is still Scotland, and is part of the UK.
N. Ireland is still N. Ireland, and according to its majority wishes to remain part of the UK.

The question "why? What is it about this island of all islands that causes people to become so attached to the idea that it must be a single political unit?" is a good question. The dominican republic is an independent country like the Republic of Ireland, and it also shares its island with another country.

oscarBravo

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Why don't you ask the same question whenever you hear the word "Britain"? Or do you?

Why don't you answer the question instead of sidestepping it?

unme

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Why don't you ask the same question whenever you hear the word "Britain"? Or do you?

Ask what question when he hears the word "Britain"?? If it is the question that he asked about Ireland, it hardly makes any sense in the context of "Britain".

That is probably why no one asks it (or at least until now).